Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I have a feeling of déjÀ vu, as I propose, in the name of the Labour Party Members, a motion to restore to the Dáil Order Paper the Civil Unions Bill 2006. Members will recall that this Bill was debated last February and at that time, in what I regarded as a cynical exercise, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform proposed a reasoned amendment. It purported to support the Bill and to pass it on Second Stage. However, it included a time element, the impact of which was to delay the passage of the Bill beyond the lifetime of the last Dail. In effect, the outgoing Government contrived to ensure that this Bill was killed. All Members from all sides who contributed and spoke in favour of its provisions paid lip service to the notion of equality and stated the time for action was now. I believe now as I did then that the majority of Members support this equality measure. Therefore, it is time for them to stop mouthing about equality and to legislate for it.

Within the last hour, I have read with dismay the Government's amendment to this motion. I had believed, given the change of Minister and the Green Party's presence in Government, that the principle would be accepted and that any infirmities or required improvements could be dealt with on Committee Stage in the coming weeks and months.

I note Deputy Cuffe's presence in the Chamber. He will recall what he said that night in the House:

On a cold December day 50 years ago, Rosa Louise Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. She was arrested and put on trial for that act of civil disobedience. She stood... for equality and human [rights] and civil rights. I wish the Government had the same courage to support the Labour... Bill.

Those were Deputy Cuffe's words on February 21 2007. He went on to state:

The Green Party commends the Labour Party for introducing the Civil Unions Bill to the Dáil. As Deputy Howlin stated... this is a seminal equality issue.

If this was a seminal equality issue in February, it remains one today. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the recognition and legal registration of civil unions. A civil union is defined as a conjugal status relationship by virtue of which two persons of the same sex receive the benefits and protections, and are subject to the same responsibilities, of parties to a marriage. Many hard working taxpaying citizens who are members of our communities and are in long-term stable relationships are denied legal recognition and the protection and rights of loving couples simply because of their gender. Irish society has made great progress and I firmly believe that people today will have no difficulty in supporting the provisions of this Bill and taking this major step towards ensuring equality for all citizens.

Under the constitutional understanding of marriage and in accordance with the current law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, persons of the same sex cannot marry each other. This Bill does not alter or seek to alter the current constitutional understanding of marriage. Instead, it seeks to create an equivalent status relationship for the benefit of persons excluded from this who are of the same sex. In simple terms, it provides that in most respects the rule of law that applies to marriage will also apply to civil unions as defined in this Bill. Article 41.3.1° of the Constitution states: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack." We believe, and our advice is, that this Bill does not offend against these provisions, since it caters for people who cannot marry and so is in no way in competition with the constitutional definition.

When this Bill was previously debated, some sought to confuse the issue. We see that attempt at confusion surfacing again in the Minister's amendment, in which it is stated that the Government notes "that legislative reform must be fully consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution". Of course all legislation must be constitutional, and we believe ours to be so. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his amendment, noted the Bill appeared to be unconstitutional but did not provide any convincing argument for that view. Will the Minister assert again that it is the constitutional case that makes this Bill infirm? Presumably those who believe that this measure would undermine the institution of marriage or do some disservice to the constitutional notion of marriage are not saying that citizens of a homosexual orientation should reconcile themselves to marriage as we now understand it under the Constitution. Are they arguing that offering civil unions to same-sex couples would somehow lure heterosexuals away from marriage? On what possible basis can it be argued that making specific provision for same-sex couples, who are debarred from legal recognition under our untouched article in the Constitution, could have any effect on that institution?

This Bill or a similar one will soon become law, and in future years we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, as we have done on other issues. I brought in the last contraception Bill as Minister for Health, but that did not cause the sky to fall. Despite what the doomsayers said about the proposal of my former colleague, former Deputy Mervyn Taylor, on the legal recognition of divorce, it did not undermine the institution of marriage.

I will briefly set out the details of this Bill. We propose that the general law with regard to capacity to enter into a civil union would be the same as that of capacity to marry, with similar restrictions with regard to age, the existence of a previous valid marriage or union, mental incapacity or closeness of blood relationship. We propose similar legal provisions for notification, solemnisation and registration of a civil union to those of marriage under the Civil Registration Act 2004. We provide that where a religious person who is registered to solemnise such services has a conscientious objection to presiding, he or she will not be required to so preside.

The Bill deals with the benefits and responsibilities of parties to a civil union. The essential purpose is to provide that parties to a civil union are entitled to the same rights, privileges and benefits and are subject to the same obligations as those to which spouses in a marriage are entitled or subject. In particular, the Bill provides that parties to a civil union are responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as is provided for in law for married persons. We propose that the rights and obligations of parties to a civil union with respect to a dependant child be the same as those of a married couple with respect to such a child. The Bill also deals with such issues as pre-nuptial agreements, recognition of foreign civil unions and civil union break-up. In general, the Bill applies the various aspects of existing family law to civil union relationships.

During the Order of Business today, when the Green Party bought the pup, I asked the Taoiseach when legislation on this issue would be published. He explained that it could not be done now because it was a complicated issue. Apparently, the equivalent Bill in the UK required 264 sections, and so this Bill would take an age to draft. That was the same view as was given eight months ago when it was stated that six months would be required, but eight months have now passed and drafting is now beginning. Why did the UK Bill require so many sections? It was simply the manner in which the law was transposed. Every aspect of marriage law and all the relevant legislation was dealt with in one document. The Canadian equivalent, which achieved exactly the same purpose, has 15 sections. The Vermont state statute to achieve the same purpose has seven sections. Equality is not a complicated issue. It is a difficult issue, but it is simple to address if there is a will.

One area of particular focus is the issue of adoption. We felt that this Bill should be as comprehensive as possible and we carefully examined this matter. Our examination led us to propose a general amendment to the law of adoption, in other words, to the law of adoption as it applies to all citizens. We set out for the first time in law basic principles for adoption. These principles would have general application in all adoption cases. The relevant subsection provides that in any decision relating to an application to adopt a child due regard shall be had to the principle that the first and paramount consideration is the best interests and welfare of the child throughout his or her life. We set out in some detail the child-focused criteria that must be considered, including the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings, the child's needs, the likely effect on the child throughout his or her life of having ceased to be a member of the original family, the likely effect on the child throughout his or her life of having become an adopted child of the person or persons who applied to adopt that child, the child's age, sex, religion, religious background, national origin, cultural and linguistic background and any other relevant characteristics, any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, the relationship which the child has with relatives and with any other relevant person, including the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so, the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs, and the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives, or of any other person, regarding the child.

The irony is that this new concept of putting a child-centred provision at the base of all matters to do with adoption underscores the fact that nobody has a right to adopt a child. A child has a right to live in a nurturing environment. This mirrors the constitutional proposal made by the then Minister of State with responsibility for children, now the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, which is shortly to be referred to the incoming All-Party Committee on the Constitution. As the Minister may recall, the relevant subsection states: "Provision may be made by law that in proceedings before any court concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the court shall endeavour to secure the best interests of the child". In essence, our proposal is that in any adoption case the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.

Finally, the Bill makes provision for similar recognition in terms of existing practices and regulations for same-sex cohabiting couples as for cohabiting couples of different genders. I have stated this Bill is narrow in its focus. It seeks to deal with one issue, that of legal recognition for couples of the same sex who are in loving relationships and want to solemnise that relationship and have it recognised by the State, with the rights and duties and obligations of any such relationship.

I listened to the Minister on "Six-one" today. As happened with another interviewee with whom I shared a platform earlier this morning, a million red herrings were introduced. A loving relationship between people of the same gender — life partners, to borrow a phrase from the Taoiseach — was equated with the situation of maiden aunts who want to live together. That was what happened on the last occasion. That is to do an enormous disservice to the very fundamental of equality.

Equality either exists or it does not. We recognise a union of people of the same sex as having validity under the law or we do not. The notion that we pretend a version of equality but, when it comes to the reality of recognition, shy away from it, is a fundamental cop-out, an extraordinary disservice and an extraordinary hurt to the tens of thousands of Irish citizens who are in such relationships who are not recognised by the State in which they work, pay taxes and live.

Other issues need to be addressed separately. They should not be brought into this debate to cloud the issue as they were on the last occasion when this measure was debated in this House. The Bill does not address or purport to address the issue of cohabiting couples of the opposite sex. That is for another day, but there are issues in that regard.

The Bill under discussion tonight has been informed by the debate and the expert considerations that have occurred in recent times, most notably the Colley working group. Ms Anne Colley and her group recommended that full civil partnership for same-sex couples be a distinct institution, separate from and not competing with marriage, and that is exactly what is achieved by the Civil Unions Bill 2006 before this House tonight.

In truth, it is make your mind up time. We had the debacle of February, when the House pretended to support a measure for equality but voted when the division bells rang to defer it beyond the known final date of the existence of the 29th Dáil, knowing that it would fall by the wayside. What we have tonight is a motion on which a decision is to be made tomorrow by the 166 Deputies of this House to allow the Bill which is clear and which is constitutional and which deals with the narrow issue of recognition on the basis of equality of same-sex unions, and to send that to a committee where any difficulties the Minister wishes to identify can be addressed. In the committee any amendments the Minister or the parties in Government wish to draft can be inserted and we can take as many weeks or as many months as the Minister likes to do that.

I heard tonight this notion of an amendment, which is even worse than the disingenuous awful amendment of February, which sets no timeframe for a Bill to be introduced. We have words from Ministers going out on the plinth that we will have heads of a Bill before February or March of next year, and then we will have a debate on the heads. When will we have legislation, when will we have equality and when will we have justice?

Let us tonight and tomorrow morning in this House respond to a social and human need of thousands of our citizens, hardworking tax-paying members of all our communities. They simply want to get on with their lives and to have the State, in which they work and live and which they respect, recognise and respect them. They wish to have their sexual orientation respected and their partnerships legally recognised.

It was Martin Luther King, on the famous day when he proclaimed the dream of equality, who reminded us of "the fierce urgency of now". He stated that "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquillising drug of gradualism." This is a matter of justice and equality that affects the daily lives of thousands of our people, who live in committed relationships and who are denied the simple rights that married couples in our society take for granted. Let us make the bold and brave decision. Let us not long finger it, let us not obfuscate about it and let us not pretend. I commend the motion and the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context